How microbes from Earth can help astronauts adapt to long-term space missions
Astronauts living in isolated, sanitized space habitats for long periods of time could stay healthier by being exposed to a greater variety of microbes from Earth, according to a new study.
"Sterile environments are not in fact the safest environments," study co-author Rob Knight, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, told Space.com. "Exposure to beneficial microbes in the environment is important for maintaining health — this is not surprising because, as humans, we have coevolved with those environmental microbes for millions of years."
Astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) face unique stressors that impact their bodily functions. These include exposure to microgravity and radiation that affect their immune responses; a human body with a healthy immune system needs to work harder in space to overcome the same infection that'd be relatively easier to fight off on Earth, according to NASA research.
Previous studies have attributed persistent medical conditions astronauts on the ISS have reported, such as skin rashes, cold sores and some atypical allergies, to their altered immune systems. With this in mind, a new study produced by Knight and his colleagues suggests that it's possible to boost astronauts' immune systems and overall health — without compromising their hygiene — by intentionally introducing diverse communities of microbes from soil and water that have coexisted with humans for millennia.
The team's findings are based on an analysis of 803 surface samples swabbed across the U.S. portion of the ISS, resulting in the largest dataset illustrating the habitat's microbial and chemical landscape. The results showed the presence of microbial communities were largely specific to their environments; for example, microbes from food were prevalent in dining and food storage areas, while fecal-associated microbes were more abundant in the Waste and Hygiene Compartment, aka the space toilet.
Comparing those samples to thousands of samples collected here on Earth showed the ubiquity of chemicals throughout the ISS that come from cleaning products and disinfectants, similar to industrialized, isolated spaces on our planet like hospitals and urban homes. Overall, the survey reflects a loss of microbial diversity on the highly-sanitized ISS, which is a notable concern and marks the station suboptimal in supporting the astronauts' immune functions.
"We hope the impact of this research will be to guide future studies that keep astronauts healthy during extended space travel and in colonizing space," Knight said.
Related Stories:
— Musk and Trump repeat false 'stranded' Starliner astronauts narrative, but they are not stranded
— Paralympian John McFall could become 1st astronaut with a disability on ISS
— NASA astronaut Suni Williams sets new record on 5.5-hour spacewalk outside ISS (video)
Before introducing new microbes to the ISS environment — such as those from Earth's soil and water — scientists must assess whether microbes that are typically harmless to human health could become harmful in space. This potential risk may arise from reduced microbial diversity or increased mutation rates triggered by radiation, Knight noted: "These factors can be tested on Earth before proceeding to costly space experiments."
The study was published on Wednesday (Feb. 27) in the journal Cell.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
38 minutes ago
- The Hill
NASA funding is an ugly casualty of the ‘big, beautiful bill'
The 'big, beautiful bill' recently signed into law enacted a number of tax, spending and regulatory measures. President Trump and his supporters regard the new law as a triumph. Trump's enemies not so much. NASA spending measures are tucked inside the bill that can best be described as ugly, or at the very least ill-advised. As Gizmodo reported, the Trump budget proposal phased out the Space Launch System heavy lift launcher and Orion spacecraft and cancelled the Lunar Gateway space station. After the Artemis III mission, the first crewed lunar landing in decades, NASA would opt for more commercial and sustainable alternatives to maintain a moon exploration campaign. The approach was favored by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and former NASA administrator nominee Jared Isaacman. Congress chose to ignore the administration's recommendations in favor of a more traditional approach. According to Gizmodo, '$2.6 billion would go toward fully funding Gateway, $4.1 billion would support [Space Launch System], and $20 million would go to the development of Orion.' At least until Artemis V, the return to the moon will follow the plan first set out during the first Trump presidency. The plan was proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. There are two possible reasons for this divergence between the White House and Congress. The cynical explanation is that the Space Launch System, for all of its huge costs, provides a lot of jobs and money in key states and congressional districts. If the project goes away, the jobs and money go away. The less cynical possibility is that although Congress may be in favor of a commercial approach to the moon and Mars in theory, it is skeptical that it will happen in a timely fashion. The long time the Commercial Crew took to get off the ground may be informing this, as is the trouble SpaceX's Starship has been having not blowing up. Whatever the reason for preserving the Space Launch System, the Orion and the Lunar Gateway, — and it may be a combination of the two suggested reasons — it seems to be a step backward in the opening to human civilization of the moon, Mars and beyond. The Space Launch System is simply too expensive to be the centerpiece of an effective and sustainable program to send humans beyond low Earth orbit. Fortunately, the bill is not the end of the story where NASA funding is concerned. Congressional appropriators still have to round out the space agency's spending bill for the next fiscal year. Congress can not only restore some of the draconian cuts that the White House has proposed for NASA's science programs, but it can also start the end-to-end commercial lunar initiative first discussed in a recent piece in Ars Technica. Trump has two things on his plate that he should take care of sooner rather than later. First, he needs to reconstitute the National Space Council with Vice President JD Vance at its head. The Space Council will provide a central point for space policy going forward. Trump has named Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim NASA administrator. Duffy is an able man with political experience and an expressed interest in space. However, he will be spread thin running both the Department of Transportation and the space agency. Trump has to nominate a permanent NASA administrator. The deep-sixing of his previous nomination of billionaire private space traveler Jared Isaacman was an incredible act of self-sabotage that has hurt NASA and Trump's own space policy. Unfortunately, Trump doubled down with an attack on Isaacman in a social media rant against Musk, who had recommended him. Without using Isaacman's name, Trump wrote that Musk 'asked that one of his close friends run NASA.' He said he initially thought the friend was 'very good,' but 'was surprised to learn that he was a blue blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before.' He added, 'I also thought it inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon, who was in the Space Business, run NASA, when NASA is such a big part of Elon's corporate life.' As Space News notes, Isaacman is a moderate Republican who donated to both parties, a common practice for businessmen (including Trump when he was in the private sector). His ties to Musk derive from the fact that SpaceX is the only company that can provide private crewed spaceflight services. Why Trump would post such claims is open to speculation. Likely he is being lied to by staffers who dislike Musk. If the president cannot bring himself to rectify his mistake of withdrawing Isaacman's nomination, he needs to name a suitable replacement, and the sooner the better. Then Congress should fast track that person's confirmation so that he or she can start to revitalize NASA as a world-class space agency. America's future as a space power depends on it. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
What will the Earth be like in 500 years?
Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you'd like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@ What will the Earth be like in 500 years? — Lotte, Brookline, Massachusetts Scientists can make some pretty accurate forecasts about the future. But predicting what the Earth will be like 500 years from now is a difficult task because there are many factors at play. Imagine Christopher Columbus in 1492 trying to predict the Americas of today! We do know that two main types of processes change our planet: One involves natural cycles, like the way the planet rotates and moves around the Sun, and the other is caused by life forms, especially humans. The Earth is constantly changing. It wobbles, the angle of its tilt changes and even its orbit changes to bring the Earth closer to or farther from the Sun. These changes happen over tens of thousands of years, and they have been responsible for ice ages. Five hundred years isn't very long in terms of geology. The second big influence on the planet is living things. The effects of life on the planet are harder to predict. Disrupting one part of an ecosystem can knock a lot of other things off kilter. Humans in particular are changing the Earth in many ways. They cut down forests and break up important wildlife habitats to build cities and grow crops. They move invasive species around the planet, disrupting ecosystems. They also contribute to global warming. People are causing the climate to change, mostly by burning fossil fuels that release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the planet and atmosphere can handle. Normally, greenhouse gases trap heat from the Sun the way the glass of a greenhouse does, keeping Earth warmer than it would be otherwise. That can be useful – until we get too much. The result of too much carbon dioxide is that temperatures rise, and that can lead to dangerously hot summer days and melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Melting ice sheets raise the oceans, causing coastal areas to flood. That's what Earth is facing right now. These changes could lead to a very different planet in 500 years, depending in large part on how willing humans are to change their ways. A warming planet can also contribute to extreme weather like heat waves, storms and droughts that can change the land. All of Earth's living forms are at risk. Looking back at the past 500 years, the living part of the Earth, called the biosphere, has changed dramatically. The number of humans has increased from around 500 million people to over 7.5 billion today. More than 800 plant and animal species have become extinct because of human activities over that period. As the human population grows, other species have less space to roam. Sea level rise means even less land, and rising temperatures will send many species migrating to better climates. Not all of Earth's changes are caused by humans, but humans have worsened some of them. A major challenge today is getting people to stop doing things that create problems, like burning fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. This is one global problem that requires countries worldwide and the people within them to work toward the same goal. Getting back to Christopher Columbus, he probably couldn't have imagined a highway full of cars or a mobile phone. Technology will no doubt improve over the next 500 years, too. But so far, tech solutions haven't scaled up fast enough to solve climate change. To keep doing the same things and expect someone else to fix the mess later would be a risky, expensive gamble. So, the Earth in 500 years may be unrecognizable. Or, if humans are willing to change their behaviors, it may persist with its vibrant forests, oceans, fields and cities for many more centuries, along with its most successful residents, humankind. Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you'd like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@ Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live. And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you're wondering, too. We won't be able to answer every question, but we will do our best. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Michael A. Little, Binghamton University, State University of New York and William D. MacDonald, Binghamton University, State University of New York Read more: Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote Extreme heat waves in a warming world don't just break records – they shatter them Coral reefs are dying as climate change decimates ocean ecosystems vital to fish and humans The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Bloomberg
5 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Another Moon Landing Will Take More Than Rocket Science
You don't hear the phrase, 'If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we…' much anymore. Perhaps that's because it's not clear that 21st-century America can put a person on the moon again. The Wall Street Journal resurrected the expression in 2018, in a story about the cost overruns and bureaucratic snags hampering NASA's Artemis program. The headline read, 'If We Can Put a Man on the Moon, Why Can't We Put a Man on the Moon?'
